Headline:
"Republican Candidate for Governor Stan Pulliam Acknowledges He and His Wife 'Explored Mutual Relationships With Other Couples.'"
Stan Pulliam is the all-in Trump supporter.
The revelation that Stan and MacKensey Pulliam had for a time participated in a Portland area swingers group shakes up the Oregon gubernatorial race. Bill Sizemore, the driving force behind multiple anti-tax ballot issues in Oregon, decided that this opened up a political lane for him. He entered the race.
Pulliam was exposed by anonymous messages sent to reporters showing a screenshot of a 2016 Facebook post. "MacKensey and I are excited to be added to your little community."
Pulliam, the mayor of Sandy, Oregon, was on a plausible path to the GOP nomination. He had the Trump lane. A question facing all GOP candidates is how to thread the needle of being Trump-ish enough to win the primary without making a general election win impossible. All candidates have been asked: "Was the 2020 election stolen from Trump?" Some candidates refuse to answer. Some say the question is about the past, and they are looking forward. Some said that Biden won. Not Pulliam. He said the 2020 election was "absolutely fraudulent." He called out rival Republicans for attempting to "move on" to other issues. "If your Republican candidate's not gonna call a spade a spade, call it the fraudulent 2020 election in a primary when it's easy, they're never gonna do it as your next governor."
Prior to this revelation, Oregon pollster John Horvick said, "I would've put him as my favorite. A Trump endorsement would make him an even stronger favorite." Pulliam had decisively won a straw poll of GOP activists. He was raising lots of money.
He is not running as a cosmopolitan hipster. He is running against Portland and what it represents in Oregon. His website emphasizes small town people and values. He said that "day in and day out, we've worked as a team to strengthen our family and to create a better community and state for our girls." Pulliam said this was a mutual exploration by himself and his wife that began and ended prior to his announcement of his campaign for governor. Stan Pulliam assures Republicans he isn't gay. “I’m a heterosexual male, and I’ve only personally engaged in heterosexual activity.”
The revelation changes the GOP governor's race. Trump's endorsement may well have been decisive, but Trump likes to support future winners and Pulliam may be fatally damaged. Republican activists, donors, and pundits are re-evaluating. Opponents are taking careful shots at Pulliam. Candidate Bridget Barton said, "I’m not running for governor to weigh in on someone’s personal life, but Oregonians are tired of career politicians who think they can get away with not being honest about who they really are.” That is the odd thing. The Pulliam couple were apparently honest with one another and who they really are. Politicians survive complicated marriage stories. Trump's reputation as wealthy playboy was part of his brand as a "winner." Winners get to enjoy the fruits of success, including the sexual company of a wide variety of beautiful young women inside and outside a marriage. "When you're a star, they let you," Trump said. A male candidate would face little political price for admitting to some past "marital mistake," if he then divorced--or if he then reconciled. Either one is OK.
What is different here is the honesty of the relationship and the sexual agency of the wife. He didn't sneak out, nor did she. Both marriage partners were communicating, and were apparently OK with this. If MacKensey Pulliam had been a victim it would be politically unremarkable. She wasn't. That is the bombshell. This will probably damage his campaign. The damage is a window into the norms of this era. Secret adultery is forgivable. Consensual mutual adultery is not.
Stan and MacKensey Pulliam appear to be standing firm and together. They aren't begging anyone for forgiveness. He said, "This campaign has always been based on liberty and individuality, and the ability for Americans to make their own decisions and decide their own future. This past with MacKensey and I is really no different."Trump voters accept Trump's sexual history. Let's see if they will accept Stan Pulliam's.
22 comments:
Wondering about making the state a better place for theirs girls includes the open marriage. Small town values huh. Being endorsed by Trump generally means you are either really stupid or you happily lie. I’m guessing it’s happily lie. Fits right in with being a Republican front runner.
As perhaps the regular commenter most conversant with what I'll call the atavistic portion of the Republican base, namely the hardcore Trump supporters, I'll try to interpret and apply that to the Pulliam revelations so far. The devil is not in the conduct per se. The devil is in the details.
Pulliam is toast with the GOP if in any way he comes off, once all the facts are out, as what the youthful these days call a "beta cuck". Trump's (known) degeneracy never diluted his supposed alpha manliness. If the swinging Pulliam plied his trade with two women, for instance, he's likely fine.
If he interacted with another man on an equal or perhaps worse on a passive or subservient level, he's done. It's no accident it was quickly urged that he's not gay. Man on man action? Woe betide too if he sat by a la Jerry Falwell Jr. pleasuring himself at the prospect of another man servicing his wife.
The Christian (!) application? First off there are non-atavistic Trump supporters who cared only about the Supreme Court and abortion, period. Others rationalized him as a King David type, a flawed but basically good, fleshpot-loving vessel through whom God nonetheless sees fit to act. Pulliam too? We'll see.
Two points:
1. Trump is Trump...a cultural unicorn. Trump wannabes have yet to show real political strength outside of white supremacist ghettos.
2. I'm all for sexual freedom, but this creeps me out. Kind of a weird "Peyton Place" vibe...
It's a rare relationship that can survive long term polyamorous behavior, whether cheating or not. Most mature people learn at a relatively young age that it's exhausting and "settling down", despite it's compromises usually is a relief.
No Republican has a chance at the governorship in Oregon anyway. And if they did, it would not be this one.
Democrats couldn’t even elect the respectable Mark Hass over the odious, completely owned, total hack Shamia Fagan.
Says a lot about the state. And who runs it.
Gives “swing for the fences” a whole new slant. Maybe he’ll be the Republican answer to Kate Brown, who publicly declared herself to be bisexual.
There's a conservative mood in Oregon at the moment. The "back to normal" drive is strong. Immoral and criminal behavior coupled with the general deterioration of Oregon's major city has set the stage, in my opinion, for a Republican sweep. If you follow school board elections and the like, local concerns are turning to basic governance issues like roads, schools, street crime, water board, garbage collection and general public safety issues involving police, fire departments, and gun violence. Leadership or lack of same in city hall and the governor's office is the opinion driver at the moment. Portland would elect a two-headed cat if they thought it would solve street crime and homeless camp squalor. That said, there is a real opportunity for a strong credible Republican or Independent untainted by wokeness to take the Governors seat. We're ready for someone who will crack a few eggs to make an omelet and not quibble over whether the eggs are free range and organic. We're hungry for results!
As a non-affiliated voter, I don't care about consensual sexual activity.
There's no way I will ever vote for a republican again in my life. So his affiliation makes him toast.
These "moods" you sense don't mean squat.
The fact that any politician attacts a big crowd doesn't mean they attract a lot of votes.
Otherwise, Ringling Brothers would have been elected POTUS. Instead, we got an entirely different circus.
To equate obnoxious supporters as proof of an election win or of election fraud is moronic.
The problem is people trying to interpret the messages of a character based on superstitious beliefs, and voting accordingly.
Ignorant leaders and voters is why the US is becoming a Third World Country.
Exporting our manufacturing base to China is how parts of the US became a third world country.
Failing to teach students critical thinking skills is how we're becoming a third world country. There are people who actually believe Trump won the election, and that CRT (a graduate level course) is being taught in our K-12 schools. They can't tell fact from fiction.
CRT itself is not being taught in K-12. Curricula based on CRT definitely are, including concepts like “white privilege,” for instance.
The claim that, “CRT is not being taught” is deceptive rhetoric designed to obfuscate the issue and confuse parents.
Most people objecting to "CRT" being taught in K-12 are trying to obfuscate their real objection to teaching black history.
When all else fails, one can always fall back on vague accusations of “racism” based on no objective evidence.
Michael T.--
We've been here before on CRT. It's laziness and ignorance more than an attempt to deceive in most cases, I suspect. College and post-graduate CRT is not taught in K-12, true enough. Since that was never claimed, it's an easy start for everyone.
Pop-CRT, however, is in Oregon K-12 and nationwide. The ADL's "No Place For Hate" curriculum, with versions taught in Oregon elementary, middle and high schools, actually defines "racism" as that which oppresses BIPOCs so to advance "whiteness".
Michael T says, with a straight face, apparently (correct, Michael?), “When all else fails, one can always fall back on vague accusations of “racism” based on no objective evidence.”
I grew up down south, Michael. It appears you’ve never spent time speaking to, or better yet visiting the residents of what is still apparently, and shamefully, referred to as “Nigger Town”, or you couldn’t possibly believe the crap you just wrote.
Malcolm: I do wish this platform had a like button for comments, because I'd hit it a 100 times.
edc.pers---
Me too, if the criteria for "like" is a series of non-substantive, non-responsive histrionic fallacies. Malcolm knows "proof" by assertion and the appeals to unspecified authority and emotion when he sees them!
Low Dungeon -
Since Malcolm was simply stating his opinion, what do your "non-responsive histrionic fallacies," "proof" or "unspecified authority" have to do with anything?
Low, why don’t you go meet some poverty stricken black folks, living in rooms with peeling linoleum, unhealthy cold water, poorly (or non) insulated shacks? Do your best to relate to them (yeah, right). Then tell me where you got the idea I was using histrionics. You’re a fool, Low, and I doubt you’d recognize the truth if it fell on your head.
Edc.pers, thanks a lot f9r the kind words! Mike, thanks for calling out that foolish LOW.
Malcolm—
I appreciate the almost religious fervor of your objections to historical racism and associated poverty. “Histrionics” applies again now as because what you said has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature, existence or credibility of CRT, nor actual statistics on law enforcement and race, You appear to take that as read, or rather, felt. Reprising an emotionalized, facts-unnecessary political certitude does not make you objectively correct, nor does the presence of similarly uninformed true believers who reflexively grant unchallenged, unchallengeable plenary power and validity to just about anything styling itself “anti-racist”.
Low, wow. Just wow. Thanks for sharing :-P
Post a Comment